Neal H Walfield wrote:
> > OK. This in parted 1.5.x or 1.4.x? Anyway, I can't reproduce it.
>
> 1.5.x.
>
> I am curious what they plans are for intergrating the code and what, if
> any thing, you would like me to do.
Sorry, I should have written to you earlier... although I think this stuff
is easier by IRC.
Anyway, I think the abstractions are bad. Basically, you separated the
code by what was convienient to do.
I think we should do something similar to the way disk.c and disk_*.c work.
The main difference is we don't need to support multiple platforms
simultaneously, in the one binary. This is basically an abstract class.
So, I propose that we have 3 files: device.c, device_linux.c, device_gnu.c
(BTW, why not device_hurd.c?)
Second, we have an API between device.c and device_*.c. This will hopefully
be pretty much one way, but the general convention is: private functions
in device.c that we want device_*.c to see we call _ped_device_*(), and
_arch_device_*() in device_*.c
ped_device_stat(), ped_device_probe_all() and _do[_refresh]_{open,close} should
be moved into os-dependent code.
So, the arch interface is something like:
_arch_device_{new,stat,[refresh]_{open,close},read,write,check,sync}
_arch_probe_all
the private _ped_device() interface would be:
_ped_device_alloc()
_ped_device_free()
_ped_device_register()
_ped_device_unregister()
The PedDevice interface in <parted/device.h> would be unchanged.
Sane?
Andrew Clausen
_______________________________________________
Bug-hurd mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
